MetroBus - a time to help make it a success?

[whole diary]

[Bmblbzzz]

I think in this case it's a name given to a housing development, regardless of what transport facilities might or might not come about.

[JayMac]

Simple answer to all that.

No.

I don't live in Bristol but visit the city fairly regularly.  As a result I have an open mind about the scheme.  I haven't had to put up with the undoubted disruption its construction has/is causing which may have coloured some city residents' minds.  I don't have the luxury of a car so anything which improves public transport is a bonus for me.

As a former resident of the area would you like to summarise your concerns with the scheme so I can see both sides?

I think my concerns are best summarised by the ongoing thread elsewhere on this forum.

It's the height of folly to support a white elephant. It only encourages those who waste public funds to plan more palid pachyderm schemes.

[chuffed]

It's the height of folly to support a white elephant. It only encourages those who waste public funds to plan more palid pachyderm schemes.

If metrobust is a pallid pachyderm what does that make HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) ? A Machiavellian Mammoth Montrosity maybe ??




Edit note: Quote marks fixed, for clarity. CfN.

[TonyK]

I read quite a bit on this forum that's not supportive of MetroBus, with relatively little than talks of it being what's right for public transport users. However, the project is nearing completion, and I wonder if now it the time to stop sniping at it and "name calling" it, and to start feeding constuctive tuning comments to the people who will be running it.    Would it be too much to suggest that public transport advocates partner with the team behind MetroBus to help market, promote, and snag the new service.   It may not be what you wanted, but isn't it an improvement on nothing, and won't you have more input into future developements if you work with (rather than against) the team providing it?

Discuss

Good luck with that, grahame. The whole project is built on mistrust and misinformation, with thinly veiled mendacity and completely unveiled threats to anyone who dares question the Powers That Be. It shows in stark relief the complete inability of our councils to run major projects, and how they are led by the nose by the unaccountable unelected oligarchy that is our LEP^» (Local Enterprise Partnership - about), and by the consultants. Prior to MetroBust, I had doubts about our local councils' ability to run public transport. After the debacle (so far) I wouldn't trust them to run a bath.

[Red Squirrel]

It's the height of folly to support a white elephant. It only encourages those who waste public funds to plan more palid pachyderm schemes.

Good luck with that, grahame. The whole project is built on mistrust and misinformation, with thinly veiled mendacity and completely unveiled threats to anyone who dares question the Powers That Be. It shows in stark relief the complete inability of our councils to run major projects, and how they are led by the nose by the unaccountable unelected oligarchy that is our LEP^» (Local Enterprise Partnership - about), and by the consultants. Prior to MetroBust, I had doubts about our local councils' ability to run public transport. After the debacle (so far) I wouldn't trust them to run a bath.

I'm not clear what 'support' means in this context. Personally, I won't use it, but then none of the routes are of any use to me. If I lived in Long Ashton or Bradley Stoke I might see things differently. Are you suggesting that such people should boycott it?

As to where we go from here: the answer must be 'forward'. Grahame has shown how patient engagement can reap dividends. We wouldn't choose to start here, but we can't start anywhere else.

[JayMac]

If, in the future, a way can be found to embed some lengths of steel and string up some leccy along the MetroBust routes, replacing the buses with trams, then I'd wholeheartedly support.

Road building disguised as bus 'improvements' was never acceptable to me. Road building to facilitate the start of a tram network would have be infinitely more preferable.

Just because MetroBust is now a fait accompli is no reason to now 'get behind it' and sing its praises.

[TonyK]

If, in the future, a way can be found to embed some lengths of steel and string up some leccy along the MetroBust routes, replacing the buses with trams, then I'd wholeheartedly support.

Road building disguised as bus 'improvements' was never acceptable to me. Road building to facilitate the start of a tram network would have be infinitely more preferable.

Just because MetroBust is now a fait accompli is no reason to now 'get behind it' and sing its praises.

My sentiments exactly. I had hoped that it was a stalking horse scheme for trams, but the councils' (expecially South Glos's) fixation with enlarging MetroBust showed otherwise. They refer to it as "the already successful" MetroBust, despite there having been a grand total of zero passengers carried. They only got an operator by dropping the access charges that formed part of the business case.

[johnneyw]

Congrats FTN, 3,000 posts today! ☺

[TonyK]

Well bugger me blow me down! I could have said something more interesting. Polemical, even. Such is life.

[Red Squirrel]

...string up some leccy

As an aside, I wonder what using onboard batteries instead of overhead knitting would do the the economics of light rail.

[Rhydgaled]

...string up some leccy

As an aside, I wonder what using onboard batteries instead of overhead knitting would do the the economics of light rail.

Even if the initial setup is cheaper (which I have no idea), you also have to consider that batteries are heavy and not reliable. My previous laptop lasted about five years and I hope my current one will last at least as long (prefrably longer) but the battery on both has needed replacement roughly every 1-2 years; the battery life on each charge becomes so short it is useless. So, with battery powered trams there is the potnential need for several tonnes of expensive batteries to be replaced several times during the life of a rail vehicle (not sure what the typical life span of a light-rail vehicle is, but a 40yr old battery EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) would have needed quite a few sets of new batteries over its life). If batteries could be relied upon to hold the same level of charge at every charge they would be a significantly more useful technology than they are in reality.

[Red Squirrel]

...string up some leccy

As an aside, I wonder what using onboard batteries instead of overhead knitting would do the the economics of light rail.

Even if the initial setup is cheaper (which I have no idea), you also have to consider that batteries are heavy and not reliable. My previous laptop lasted about five years and I hope my current one will last at least as long (prefrably longer) but the battery on both has needed replacement roughly every 1-2 years; the battery life on each charge becomes so short it is useless. So, with battery powered trams there is the potnential need for several tonnes of expensive batteries to be replaced several times during the life of a rail vehicle (not sure what the typical life span of a light-rail vehicle is, but a 40yr old battery EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) would have needed quite a few sets of new batteries over its life). If batteries could be relied upon to hold the same level of charge at every charge they would be a significantly more useful technology than they are in reality.

I'm sorry to hear of your laptop woes, but I'd be interested to know what evidence you have that EV batteries are unreliable. My understanding is that in the real world that these batteries are actually retaining capacity better than anticipated and, as an aside, even when they are down to 60% capacity (which they may be after about 12 years) you still have a pretty impressive energy store which you can use elsewhere for many more years.

As to weight, here's an interesting comparison: Diesel has an specific energy of 48MJ/Kg, whereas lithium ion batteries manage an apparently paltry 0.6MJ/Kg. That's an eighty-fold difference in energy density. However if you factor in the fact that electric motors are around three times as efficient as diesel engines, you see that in terms of battery load v fuel load you'd only need to carry 25 times as much weight for equivalent range with batteries. But you wouldn't necessarily do that either; a DC^▸ (Direct Current) fast charger at the terminus could bump your batteries back up to 80% in under 30 mins, so you could probably get away with a much shorter range.

It is a practical possibility; a number of manufacturers already offer 100% electric buses, with quoted ranges of 100-300km. Zonda Bus quote a battery lifespan of 500,000Km+.

I just can't help thinking the technology would work even better on rails.

[TonyK]

I just can't help thinking the technology would work even better on rails.

So it would, with the vast reduction in friction, and the ability to coast once at a good speed.

[Rhydgaled]

It is a practical possibility; a number of manufacturers already offer 100% electric buses, with quoted ranges of 100-300km. Zonda Bus quote a battery lifespan of 500,000Km+.

I just can't help thinking the technology would work even better on rails.

Well, it should work for trams at least as well as for buses (after all, the Midland Metro are going to use batteries on sections I believe); but how the ongoing costs:benifits work out compared to a tram system with overhead wires installed (like Manchester's and the other parts of the Midland Metro) is an open question.